25 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular complaint submitted to Transport for London (TfL). TfL has withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it says it is the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0092 refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Transport for London
24 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Roehampton (“the University”) relating to a copy of the University’s latest pay audit and the salaries of professors without senior management responsibilities. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information sought on salaries outside of the RS03 band. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Roehampton University
24 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Costello Report and any other related reports. Staffordshire Police disclosed a copy of the Costello Report, with redactions in respect of information which it said was exempt from disclosure under sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), 31 (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was entitled to rely on sections 30, 31 and 40 to withhold most of the information. However, she found that it incorrectly cited section 31 to make one redaction. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to disclose to the complainant the recommendation made in paragraph 13.1 of the Costello Report, previously withheld under section 31.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
24 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Costello Report and any other related reports and specified correspondence. Staffordshire Police disclosed a copy of the Costello Report, with redactions in respect of information which it said was exempt from disclosure under sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), 31 (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was entitled to rely on sections 30, 31 and 40 to withhold most of the information. However, she found that it incorrectly cited section 31 to make one redaction. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to disclose to the complainant the recommendation made in paragraph 13.1 of the Costello Report, previously withheld under section 31.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
24 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to two cases listed in the Animals in Science Regulation Unit’s Annual Report 2014 which had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Office argued that the request was vexatious because complying with it would place a grossly oppressive burden on it. It therefore refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/171/2019 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Home Office
24 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Hart District Council’s outsourcing agreement with Everyone Active. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hart District Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a), 17(3) and 17(7)(b) of the FOIA but breached its obligation under 17(7)(a) of the FOIA. She has also decided that in some instances it complied with its obligations under sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) of the FOIA but in other instances it breached those sections. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 17
View Hart District Council
20 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Epping Forest District Council to provide him with copies of legislation and statutory guidance which concerns planning matters. The Council provided the complainant with website addresses so that he might access for himself the information he has asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epping Forest District Council has complied with Regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14 of the EIR by directing the complainant to the information he seeks. That information is easily accessed and freely available.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5
View Epping Forest District Council
20 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the service and / or disciplinary history of three named officers from Kent Police. Kent Police refused to provide this citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0100 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
20 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested guidance and codes of conduct concerning doctors’ care of their patients. East London NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 8 July 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View East London NHS Foundation Trust
20 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Trust’s Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The Trust refused the request under section 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Trust disclosed the majority of the information but continued to withhold some information under section 43(2) and withheld other information under section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and, with the exception of one piece of information, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to which it applied section 43(2) as well as the one piece of information, identified in the confidential annexe accompanying this notice, which although engaging section 36(2)(c) cannot be with withheld under that exemption following application of the pu
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 43
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
20 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence made on a planning development at Bourton Mill in North Dorset. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council disclosed some correspondence however the complainant considers that further information should be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that council was correct to say that it does not hold any further information for the purposes of Regulation 5(1). The Commissioner has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Devon District Council
20 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to speeding cameras on the M62 from West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”). WYP provided some of the information but refused the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a) and (b) are properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Yorkshire Police
19 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office for Standards of Education (“Ofsted”) relating to the number of complaints it has received over the last four years for a number of schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has incorrectly applied section 33(3) (public audit functions) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires Ofsted to take issue a fresh response to the request which does not make reference to section 33(3) of the FOIA. Ofsted must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
19 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Lender Option, Borrower option (LOBO) loans. Lancashire County Council refused the request, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA - the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council disclosed the requested information outside the statutory time for compliance and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
19 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Manchester (“the University”) relating to the submissions of applicants that were invited to attend an interview at the University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Manchester
13 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about contact it may have received from a school about a particular pupil. The Trust has said that the requested information is exempt from release under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner considers that the Trust incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the request. The Commissioner has decided that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the Trust is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information as to do so would release the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
13 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board (‘the Board’) concerning maintenance works carried out on a particular watercourse running alongside a public by-way in Eldersfield, Worcestershire. The Board withheld the information because it says it is the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under regulation 12(3), the requested information is the personal data of third persons and it is excepted from release by virtue of regulation 13(2)(a)(i) as disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
12 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information about whether or not Mr Abbott, the former Prime Minister of Australia, held both Australian and British citizenship or had renounced British citizenship. The Commissioner found that confirmation or denial would be unfair and therefore in breach of the first data protection principle. Accordingly she decided that the exemption provided by section 40(5) FOIA is engaged and that the Home Office had correctly relied on that exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0079 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
12 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the sale of land by the RC Parish of Maghera, in Newcastle, County Down, Northern Ireland. The CCNI provided the complainant with some information, however it refused to disclose the remainder (“the withheld information,”) citing sections 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCNI has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the information withheld under that section and that it has correctly applied section 41 to some of the remaining withheld information, however some should be disclosed as section 41 is not applicable to it. The Commissioner has not considered the CCNI’s application of section 43(2), the reason for which is explained later in the Decision Notice.The Commissioner requires the CCNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation -To disclose the information to which section 41 of FOIA does not apply, which is set out in a confidential annex to this Noti
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
12 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to CDC Group seeking various details about its private equity investments. CDC provided the complainant with the information relating to its commitment to each private equity fund. However, it refused to provide him with the remaining information he sought, namely the contributions to each fund from inception to date, distributions received from each fund from inception to date, and the net asset value of each fund. CDC argued this information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that the information withheld by CDC is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0080 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/678/2018 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
10 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails and correspondence between the force medical advisor and named organisations sent and received including specified dates in 2015. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) refused to disclose this information under section 12(1) of FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary applied section 12(1) of the FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Avon and Somerset Police
10 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information described as ‘Annual reports, diplomatic reports; leading personalities’ concerning Saudi Arabia. The FCO provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of her request and explained that other documents falling within the scope could be viewed at The National Archives. However, the FCO sought to withhold the remaining information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of exemptions cited by the FCO.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 41
10 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a consultation on community hospital beds. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) has breached section 1 (1) and section 10 (1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). Because the CCG has provided a response to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
10 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a series of requests to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in which he requested information relating to the MoJ’s processes for handling correspondence and information relating to its responsibilities under the Data Protection Act (DPA). The MoJ relied on sections 12(1) (cost of compliance) and 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s requests are vexatious and therefore the MoJ was entitled to refuse them in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. She also found that, by failing to respond to the requests within 20 working days of receipt, the MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
6 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a disciplinary investigation of a former staff member. DAT provided the complainant with some of the requested information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. DAT also cited the exemptions under section 31 and 43(2) of the FOIA in its reasons for refusing some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAT correctly withheld information by virtue of section 40(2) of the FOIA and therefore did not go on to consider the application of sections 31 and 43(2). The Commissioner does not require DAT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View DELTA ACADEMIES TRUST
6 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information regarding pregnancies at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre from the Home Office. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that although it has complied with section 17(1) in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Home Office is required to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
6 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the short-term holding facility at Dunkerque. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
6 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two information requests for statistical data relating to numbers of drug finds in English prisons from the Ministry of Justice (the “MoJ”). The MoJ refused to provide this on the basis of sections 22 (information intended for future publication) and 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 22 or 44(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
6 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Longport Freight Shed. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
6 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Certificate of Sponsorship issued by the Home Office to foreigners for the purpose of applying for a visa to the UK. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
6 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information gathered by Ofsted prior to the publication of its inspection report on The Oldham Academy North (“the School”). Ofsted disclosed some of the information but withheld some under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied. As the Commissioner has decided that some of the information is not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, she requires OFSTED to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the following information to the complainant: The joining instructions for the inspection team (with contact details redacted); The curriculum pathways information 2016-2018 for Intermediate and Aspire groups. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0086 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
6 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the recommendation to grant compensation in the case of a man wrongly convicted of murder. The MoJ withheld the requested information citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2). Her decision is that the MoJ was entitled to withhold the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0068 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
6 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested training materials used by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The public authority provided the majority of the requested information but withheld information in its audit toolkit on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA – that disclosing the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly engaged the section 36(2)(c) exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Information Commissioner
5 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office in relation to a Subject Access Request (SAR) he had submitted under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
5 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. Carlisle City Council withheld the information under the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings, regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that Carlisle City Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
4 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a consultation on community hospital beds. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) has breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The CCG has subsequently provided a response to the complainant and therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
4 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to re-use Public Rights of Way information provided to him in response to a previous request under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has breached regulation 12(2) of RPSI by unnecessarily restricting the way in which a document can be re-used. She has also decided that Cambridgeshire County Council has not breached regulation 8(1) of RPSI but has failed to comply with regulation 17(3) of RPSI. The Commissioner requires the public authority to grant re-use of the requested information under the Open Government Licence in order to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 12(2); RPSI 17(3); RPSI 8(1)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
4 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Warwick actual and projected figures spanning various years for its student numbers, on-campus accommodation and students living in Leamington Spa. The University of Warwick has disclosed some of the requested information but withheld most of the projected figures under Section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that University of Warwick has not successfully applied Section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information which comprises of one global number for projected on-campus figures for the combined academic years of 2018/19 and 2019/20 and the twelve separate numbers for the projected student figures for 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Warwick
4 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the redevelopment of the Bacton Rise estate and the involvement of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). Six requests were made by the complainant and two others from other applicants using the same address. The council believed they were acting in concert and refused to respond to all eight requests citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Five of the requests have been considered under the EIR and the Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(b) does not apply. In respect of the sixth request, this has been considered under the FOIA and the Commissioner’s decision is that section 14 of the FOIA does not apply. She therefore requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with the FOIA and EIR which does not reply on section 14 or regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View Camden Council
3 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information (the Commission). The Cabinet Office denied holding information for one part of the complainant’s request. For the other requests, it refused to disclose the relevant information because it was third party personal data under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office denied holding information for another part of the request, and for the others cited further exemptions: Section 35(1)(a) – for the information in its entirety; Section 35(1)(b) – for the specific correspondence which was communication between ministers; Section 36(2)(c) – should the Commissioner find that section 35 did not apply; Section 41(1) – for the correspondence concerning Jack Straw MP. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold information relating to contact with the Labour
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
3 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request for information to Great Yarmouth Borough Council which concerns the financial payments or other assistance paid or given in respect of properties at specified locations, and any reviews, assessments and checks regarding the financial circumstances of any applicants and recipients of those payments. The Commissioner has established that the Council did not reply to the complainant’s request on the grounds that it is vexatious and subject to the Council’s application of section 17(6) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Great Yarmouth Borough Council is entitled to rely on section 17(6) of the FOIA and therefore it is not obliged to reply to the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Great Yarmouth Borough Council
3 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information associated with a specified grant to the Community Service Trust (‘CST’). The Home Office applied section 14(2) of FOIA (repeated request). Having considered its handling of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office did not apply section 14(2) appropriately to that request for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request not relying on section 14(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Home Office
3 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Nottingham City Council’s ‘Begging: Watch Your Money’ campaign. He particularly seeks the identity of the agency that produced advertisements, the amount of money paid to the agency by the Council and the name of the person who authorised the campaign. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council disclosed to the complainant the name of the person who authorised the campaign but continued to rely on section 38 to withhold the name of the agency and the amount of money the agency was paid. The Commissioner has decided that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA in respect of part 3 of the complainant’s request. However, because the Council’s disclosure was made significantly after the twenty day compliance period, the Commissioner is obliged to find that the Council has contravened section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also considered the Council’s reliance on section 38 of the FOIA to withhold the inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 38
View Nottingham City Council
3 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about policies at HMYOI Feltham. By the date of this decision notice the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”) had not responded substantively to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day time limit, the MoJ has failed to comply with section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to relation to a Leeds City Council (the council) Executive Board Report dated June 2013 concerning a £9.9m loan to GMV Twelve Ltd (the developer). The council provided some information, but withheld the remainder relying on the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(e) for commercially confidential information and regulation 13 for third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Leeds City Council
31 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a poster seen in offices of Yardley Jobcentre. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it did not respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timeframe. As the response has now been issued no steps are required in relation to this breach. In relation to whether the DWP holds information relevant to the complainant’s request, the Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP does not hold any relevant information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a poster seen in offices of Yardley Jobcentre. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it did not respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timeframe. As the response has now been issued no steps are required in relation to this breach. In relation to whether the DWP holds information relevant to the complainant’s request, the Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP does not hold any relevant information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding tribunal decisions from the Office of the Industrial Tribunal and Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET). This is a Non-Department Public Body which is overseen by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. The OITFET disclosed some information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose the remainder (“the withheld information”) citing section 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OITFET has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. Therefore she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
30 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments made by NHS England (including CSUs and other business units) for 2014/15. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England (NHSE) has breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Since this complaint was made NHSE has provided a response to the complainant and therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Ilmington Defibrillator Group being temporarily taken off WMAS Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. WMAS confirmed that the requested information was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that WMAS was correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust